Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that in the regions outside London there is genuine concern that yet another major international stadium appears to be going to London?

25 Jul 2002 : Column 534

If the FA fails to bring the project successfully to the next stage, will there come a time in the coming weeks when the Government reopen the Birmingham bid?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. It is a hypothetical question, but if that were to happen the question of a stadium in Birmingham certainly would have to be reopened.

Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that public money has been used, whether it comes from the National Lottery or elsewhere? Will the Government therefore assure us that a Minister will ultimately make sure that something happens to give us a national stadium no matter where and that a start will be made very shortly? At the moment, everybody is losing out.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the implication of public funding, which has come from Sport England, is that the Government should ensure that there are adequate safeguards. It does not mean that the Government should take over the direction of the project. It is important to understand that.

Iraq

3.23 p.m.

Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What developments there have been towards the re-establishment of a United Nations weapons inspectorate in Iraq.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission has been denied access to Iraq since its establishment in December 1999. We consistently urge Iraq to allow the return of weapons inspectors. Since March this year, the UN Secretary-General has held three rounds of talks with the Iraqi Foreign Minister in an attempt to break this impasse. Regrettably, Iraq continues to defy the UN by refusing to allow the inspectors in.

Lord Judd: My Lords, there is no argument about the fact that we are dealing with a cruel and sinister regime. The question is how we do so while protecting the people of Iraq who have suffered under it. Does my noble friend agree that in the absence of any progress on inspectors, before any momentum towards military action becomes irreversible there must be convincing evidence of its necessity and a clear statement of war aims, specific and explicit UN authorisation, an analysis of the regional and global implications, clarity about how the future stability of Iraq would be secured, realism about the cost of reconstruction and rehabilitation and how that would be met, and above all a determination at all costs to distinguish between the Saddam regime and the people of Iraq?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as we have repeatedly made clear, most recently on 18th June, no decision has been taken to launch military action. We are

25 Jul 2002 : Column 535

proceeding prudently and patiently in consultation with our allies. Her Majesty's Government are committed to ensuring that they always act in accordance with international law. Given that no decision has been taken to launch military action, many of my noble friend's questions are entirely hypothetical. I understand that it is not wise to give hypothetical answers from the Dispatch Box.

My noble friend asked for convincing evidence. Her Majesty's Government have carried out detailed studies of quantities of material unaccounted for by UNSCOM inspectors that have potential applications in Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programme. They are as follows: up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, approximately 300 tonnes of which in the Iraqi chemical weapons programmes were unique to the production of VX nerve agent; up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical weapon agent, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent; and over 3,000 special munitions for the delivery of chemical and biological agents. I hope that your Lordships agree that that gives us great evidence of the threat that we face. We shall release further material about this threat in due course.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the great problems that the House confronts is that it is either too early to discuss the issue of a possible invasion of Iraq because we do not yet have a decision, or too late because the decision has been taken, as indicated by the Prime Minister's answer to a question in another place when he referred to "when" that decision is taken, although he said later that that was a slip of the tongue? Does the Minister accept that one of the great problems that we confront is discussing on what basis we would be morally justified in a campaign that would almost certainly mean the death of many thousands of civilians and very probably the destruction of one of the oldest civilisations on earth? When will the Prime Minister feel able to publish evidence not of the possession of weapons of mass destruction—which are also possessed by Israel, Britain, France, Russia and many other countries—but of the intent to use them and the ability to deliver them? That is central to whether Britain would be morally justified in taking part in a military attack against Iraq.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Baroness has great international experience. She will know that it is not possible for me to say today when that information can be published. Much of the information is highly sensitive. We will publish what we can when we can. That is what the Prime Minister has said. I am pleased that the noble Baroness has also taken the opportunity to repeat what the Prime Minister said yesterday and again this morning—that no decision has been taken to launch military action. The noble Baroness will also know that Her Majesty's Government would regard the use of force against any state as lawful if it had been authorised by the United Nations Security Council, if it were in the exercise of

25 Jul 2002 : Column 536

the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence, or, exceptionally, if it were carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, both previous questions rightly raised the issue of a dossier to give us more information on Saddam Hussein's involvement both in weapons of mass destruction and in Al'Qaeda terrorism. I fully understand the noble Baroness's position about no decision being taken. However, can she assure us that the dossier, which has now been promised by the Prime Minister, is forthcoming and that if it is available in the next few weeks it will be properly circulated to noble Lords and to the other place although Parliament will be in recess? Can she confirm reports that, even before the final decision, the British military authorities are having talks in London now with their Australian counterparts—the Australian SAS—about the various positions they would take up in the proposed blockade which will be operated from Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar and other areas around Iraq?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the Prime Minister will ensure that the information dossier will be in the public domain as soon as the time is right. However, I cannot confirm the discussions that the noble Lord asks about.

Adoption and Children Bill

3.31 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway rose to move, That the Adoption and Children Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 4, 44, 46, 48 to 51 and 139(4) to (7).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the wake of yesterday's tidal wave of criticism of the Procedure Committee, it has to be said at the outset that there is no criticism of the decision of the usual channels, on the information before them before Second Reading, to favour committal of the Bill to Grand Committee.

Proposal 17 in the 5th Report of the Procedure Committee—that such a decision should be made by the usual channels and considered by the House after Second Reading—has yet to be embodied in Standing Order 47. If it had been so embodied, no doubt a split committal would or should have been made as is sought by this Motion for recommittal. Paragraph 20 of the Procedure Committee report affirms that split committal is an extant procedure. Indeed, Amendment No. 14 to the report, moved yesterday by my noble friend Lord Elton, extended that concept of split committal.

It would have been apparent after Second Reading that the amendments moved in Grand Committee to the clauses referred to in this Motion raise contentious matters of principle of general public importance concerning the adoption of children which, as such, ought to be debated on the Floor of the House in Committee, before Report. Why is this a matter of

25 Jul 2002 : Column 537

general public importance? There are now 14,000 children who have been in care over five years seeking adoption. A letter dated 23rd July which has been placed in the Library by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, confirms that there is a very substantial dearth of approved adopters.

Not only is there no criticism of the decision of the usual channels; there is no criticism of the work of the Grand Committee in which some debate ensued on the amendments to these clauses. The Official Report of the debate on a multitude of probing amendments on seven Marshalled Lists shows that, under the benevolent aegis of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, there was the type of debate customarily associated with Grand Committee. It served an invaluable purpose. It was an opportunity for a constructive exchange of views on detailed aspects of government policy; to redefine issues; to rethink one's own thoughts; but not to retable many of those amendments or substantially to revise others. Within the traditional remit of non-contentious affairs—the clauses discussed, but not these clauses—the Grand Committee was an unqualified success and served its purpose.

However, on these contentious clauses on matters of principle, such was not and could never have been the case. What are these matters of principle? Amendments to Clauses 48 to 50 and Clause 139 sought to exclude unmarried heterosexual couples and joint and single homosexuals from the proposed adoption regime. Amendments to Clauses 46 and 51 sought to slight the practice established by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House as to dispensation with parental consent. Clauses 4 to 44 sought to qualify on the face of the Bill the exercise of discretion on implementing regulations that are not to be available until some two years after Royal Assent.

Surely on such matters of general public importance, the Back-Benches, Cross-Benches and Spiritual Benches—of whatever opinion on the merits, which is immaterial—may well wish to reassert the entitlement of unrestricted debate in Committee on the Floor of the House, which is not available at any other stage of a Bill. In this context, reference could be made to the paper of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth which was sent to the Procedure Committee, but not considered by it, as appears from col. 451 of the Official Report.

If this Motion were to commend itself, Royal Assent could still be granted before the end of this Session, and statute which could not be implemented for two years after Royal Assent would not be delayed from taking effect. There has been no lobby. This is not an assault upon the citadel, either to be seen as such or to be repelled as such. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Adoption and Children Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 4, 44, 46, 48 to 51 and 139(4) to (7).—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)

25 Jul 2002 : Column 538


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page